/m/orioles

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Check the portrait Farrah Fawcett made for George Hurrell (the same guy who photographed Lombard, Harlow, Norma Shearer and so many other '30s legends) in the late 1970s. This is exquisite, the antithesis of her swimsuit poster. You don't think of Fawcett as elegant, but this is beautiful.

Agree with the general sentiments of the Angels being overrated, particularly Fawcett and the new crew.

But Jacyln Smith is one of the most beautiful women who ever lived.

And she was athletic -- check out the Battle of the Network Stars, circa 1977 or 1978, when she takes the baton in the relay race and lights out for the finish line, Cosell screaming at the top of his lungs "And look at Jackie Smith go!!!!!"

(Though the fastest had to be the former minor leaguer Kurt Russell. Cosell: "And Kurt Russell - just POURING it on now!" Alas, Russell's team left him too far behind to close the ground. Russell also was pulling so hard in the tug of war later that he sufferred a nose bleed. And let's not forget the ease with which he fired a strike into the target of that water dunk machine, every time.)

The level of determination that Bob Conrad displayed, getting into arguments with Kaplan and Savalas, had to be seen to be believed.)

Two scouts ranked the order as Harper, Trout and Machado; two had it Trout, Machado and Harper and one ranked it Harper, Machado and Trout. One scout said he’d take the Boston Red Sox’s shortstop prospect, 20-year-old Xander Bogaerts, third, a spot ahead of Machado.

this is completely ridiculous, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy reading it.

Well Drew did once flash her boobies at David Letterman ... 20+ years ago.

If you can catch the Graham Norton show, you can find out who might be fun on a date (sort of amazing that show works). Diaz ... not so much, not very interesting, can't tell a story, does laugh a lot. Haven't seen Lucy Liu or Barrymore there. Based on that show, best date material (from, y'know, the interesting perspective) would be Helen Mirren.

How can you mention Bogaerts and Taveras and not Profar? I'd take Profar over Machado.

That's as insane as mentioning Bogaerts on the list.

Machado is puttinf up a 139 wRC+ in MLB (after a 96 last year) with superlative defense. Profar is putting up a 90 wRC+ in AAA, after a 127 last year at the same level. Machado is also younger, having skipped right over AAA.

One scout said he’d take the Boston Red Sox’s shortstop prospect, 20-year-old Xander Bogaerts, third, a spot ahead of Machado.

this is completely ridiculous, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy reading it.

What's the timetable for Bogaerts? He's doing pretty well in AA and he's older than Machado, he seems like a call up option. Or are the Sox committed to Drew until he hurts himself?

To get back to how awesome Machado is, I remember thinking that he was a bit overhyped last year. I looked at his numbers and thought they were impressive for his age, but not forecasting a guy who would hit the snot out of the ball in the Majors at 20 (turns 21 in July). I had the same reaction when Harper was called up. I am guessing that when you get a certain caliber of prospect, you look for certain things in the field and at the plate and once you see those consistently for a week or two, you call them up.

I'm also pretty interested to see how Machado develops as a hitter. He's got pretty good power and doesn't strike out or walk that much but he didn't have especially high BABIPs in the minors. I could see him going in any number of different directions as a hitter as he develops. Zips has him at .266/.319/.435 for the rest of the season, which suggest that the power is very real and would be pretty great for a 20 year old with his glove. If he does any better than that, wow.

The best date material would be Helen Mirren in the late 60's or early 70's. She was smoking hot *and* super smart and talented. Of course she's aged incredibly well and still looks great, but back then...wow.
http://www.instyle.com/instyle/package/transformations/photos/0,,20290121_20432472_20860179,00.html

How can you mention Bogaerts and Taveras and not Profar? I'd take Profar over Machado.

That's as insane as mentioning Bogaerts on the list.

Yeah, at some point you have to look at on field production, Machado has hit .293/.328/.478 in 90 MLB games, he's 7 months older than Profar, but Profar is hitting .250/.349/.371 in AAA

also to be really annoying:
Profar had a .883 OPS in the Sallie League (A ball, league average .724)
Profar had a .820 OPS in the Texas League (AA, league was .715)
Profar now has a .720 in the PCL (league .769)

Machado hit better in A than A+, but OTOH hit better in AA than he did in the Carolina League (A+).

Profar is losing production relative to league as he gets promoted ( I call it the Delmon Young pattern)
it could mean that he's getting promoted a wee bit too aggressively, or it could simply mean he's not progressing as much as you'd like

Xander (in between Machado and Profar in age) has outhit Profar to date- AND shows improvement relative to league as he gets promoted- unless Profar is a much better defender I don't see much justification for putting Profar over Xander (and yes I now BA has Profar #1 and Xander #8)

I dunno snapper (and JSLF); while I suppose most people would take Machado over Profar, using "insane" is an awfuly strong adjective, considering:
MMACHADO born July 1992 plays 3B
----six projections systems wOBA of .314 this spring (see Fangrpahs pages)
J PROFAR born Feb 1993, plays SS
----six projections systems wOBA of .325 this spring

So unless you think the SSS of 2013 data is all THAT, I'd take the guy who is younger, plays a tougher position, and was projected to hit better.

I dunno snapper (and JSLF); while I suppose most people would take Machado over Profar, using "insane" is an awfuly strong adjective, considering:
MMACHADO born July 1992 plays 3B
----six projections systems wOBA of .314 this spring (see Fangrpahs pages)
J PROFAR born Feb 1993, plays SS
----six projections systems wOBA of .325 this spring

So unless you think the SSS of 2013 data is all THAT, I'd take the guy who is younger, plays a tougher position, and was projected to hit better.

Machado is a SS. He's playing out of position b/c the O's have Hardy too. His defensive numbers are excellent (+13 Rfield, +12 UZR in 90 Gs), as befits a very good SS playing 3B.

350 PAs of MLB production mean a ton for a young hitter. The updated projections have Machado at a .341 wOBA, 110 wRC+(Zips and Steamer), and Profar at .301, 79 (Steamer only).

The level of determination that Bob Conrad displayed, getting into arguments with Kaplan and Savalas, had to be seen to be believed.)

Think it may have been from a link you supplied in a previous thread - but I have seen and enjoyed this.

I'm not really into ranking ladies but... would have said Jackson as a kid, Liu from the movies, and Trout has already had a better season than any of those other guys are ever likely to have. Not that Trout is a lady.

1: Machado out hit Profar in 2012, .789 OPS in the EL (league .723), .739 in the majors (OPS+ of 98)
Profar hit .820 in the TL (league .715)

2: Profar hit .883 in the Sallie League in 2011 (league was .724), Machado hit .859 in the Sallie League and .692 in the Carolina League (league .700), so Profar out hit Machado in 2011

Machado didn't play enough in 2010 to make a fair comparison.

Machado now has 841 PAs AA and above: he's hit .279/.339/.457 (nearly 1/2 in the majors)
Profar now has 732 PAs AA and above: .272/.358/.436 (mostly in AA)

Basically if you are refusing to look at the NOW, what seemingly pulls Profar above Machado as a hitter is that Machado spit the bit in 1/2 a year in the Carolina League, whereas Profar raked for a full year in the Sallie League (a lower league)

Do the current projections have a SSS problem? sure- but the pre-season projections had a worse one.

I'm an orioles fan and love machado, but I'd still take Trout at this point. He has everything: speed, defense, hitting, hitting for power, plate discipline, baserunning, durability...And he's already had an amazing full season.

Trout has had a better year by bWAR than all but a dozen hitters in the history of baseball. Even accepting the faults of WAR, everyone else on that list is an inner circle hall of famer. That Machado and Harper aren't Trout doesn't take away from the fact that they're having very good to great years at age 20.

What's the timetable for Bogaerts? He's doing pretty well in AA and he's older than Machado, he seems like a call up option. Or are the Sox committed to Drew until he hurts himself?

I think the Sox want to take time for him to evolve at the plate a bit. He's still pretty raw at the plate though he's walking more and with Drew and even Igelsias the Sox aren't in a massive rush. Drew's numbers are pretty bad but he was rushed back a bit sooner than planned after his concussion and after his first week he's been a pretty productive player. There is a pretty decent chance that if Bogaerts does come to Boston this year for more than a September call up it will be as a third baseman since Will Middlebrooks is absolutely helpless.

I doubt we see him before September though.

Does Bogaerts have a twin? Fangraphs has a Jair Bogaerts with the same B-day.

Yes. He was actually the player that went to Chicago in the trade that sent Theo to the Cubs.

That's very likely true. But, it doesn't mean he'll necessarily have the best career.
Sure. But it's a reeeeaaaal good sign for him.
As for Machado and Harper, I don't think anyone bags on them - I'd take 'em on my team in a heartbeat.

So when's the last time there were so many players so good so young? Perhaps the mid-50s when Aaron, Kaline, and Frank Robinson came up within a couple of years of each other, or ~1929 with Jimmie Foxx and Mel Ott: in other words, not merely that great players were near-rookies at the same time, but that they were also immediately great in the majors.

In the early 1970s (my memory is obviously B-Ref assisted) there was a string of splashy debuts – Cesar Cedeño, Buddy Bell, Claudell Washington, Willie Randolph – and though none of those guys became HOFers, they all drew considerable media attention as I recall; Cedeño in particular got hype that falls short of Bryce Harper levels only because the hype machine was primitive in those days. But they were more just interesting young guys, for the most part.

The updated projections have Machado at a .341 wOBA
1. Those projections INCLUDE Machado's performance already this year. The "rest of season" projecitons have him at .326 and .323; and this is the correct measure to use for future performance.
2. Yes, Steamer has Profar at .301. But it is the WORST of the six projeciotns for him; the others are between .313 and .343. Using the outlier ain't a very fair comparison point.

I agree with your larger point, that 350 PA in the majors is more important for a Machado than it is for a guy with years of data (Yuniesky Betancourt). Upon further review, I may take Machado in a close call. I'm not "refusing to look at the now"; I am trying to balance it, and not toss out past year data.

I think the point here is that Trout, Harper, and Machado are all in the majors, which was the point of the comparison that Connolly wanted people to draw. One could make the argument that there are better prospects than Machado still in the minors - I think the mentions of Bogaerts and Taveras were of that ilk.

So when's the last time there were so many players so good so young? Perhaps the mid-50s when Aaron, Kaline, and Frank Robinson came up within a couple of years of each other, or ~1929 with Jimmie Foxx and Mel Ott: in other words, not merely that great players were near-rookies at the same time, but that they were also immediately great in the majors.

Around 2007-2008 had Votto, Braun, Pedroia, and Lincecum hit the ground running. If you were generous, you could include Justin Upton and Tulowitzki in that group.

If you can catch the Graham Norton show, you can find out who might be fun on a date (sort of amazing that show works).

I've never been a huge fan of Christina Ricci, but I thought she did quite well for herself on Norton's show. (Skip to the 5 minute mark to miss the boring monologue stuff). Though maybe it's more that Gervais and Merchant just play off her really well.

I think any date would likely be improved by bringing along those two.

I'm definitely not a fan of celebrity interview shows (or at least the parts of shows that actually consist of celebrity interviews) but Norton's I usually find enjoyable. An oddly interesting show.

If they redid the movie today, the 'talent' they can acquire for the movie would be enormous.

Jennifer Lawerence, Megan Fox, and Mila Kunis, to start.

I guess it's true that very few lines exist any more between high and low brow entertainment or art; who would be the most UNlikeliest casting that would still fill the bill? Who's this century's equivalent of, say, prime Katherine Hepburn in the Kate Jackson role?

Fair enough. One thing I like about Gervais in this kind of context is that he was one of the most obvious "genuine" laughs of all time. You can tell when he actually finds something hilarious, which is not always the case in conversations. Although I think his most recent work suffers because he finds certain things hilarious (ie. Karl Pilkington) that I don't necessarily.

Stephen Merchant on the other hand is right in my wheel-house, as he has a much more developed self-depricating bone. Gervais is quite good at self ridicule, but Merchant appears to have devoted his life to the principle.

Michelle Williams has really developed a career where a Charlie's Angels type role would be quite shocking. Does she count as beautiful enough?

EDIT: I can see Carey Mulligan as well.

I'd say Rebecca Hall...but I can see her playing the brainy one or something. Ellen Page would be pretty inconrguous...though I suspect I am drifting quite far from the kind of actress we're talking about here.

My gut feeling is that the magnitude of Trout's season is being greatly exaggerated by WAR. He "only" posted a 326/399/564 line.

And don't forget that he missed a month as well. And played a lot of LF. Yes, his WAR doesn't really pass the sanity check.

I mean he stole 49 bases in 54 attempts. There's no measurement error there. It's also not hard to believe that he was 13 runs above average defensively in 139 games. That's exactly what you'd expect from an elite level defender (and really who's going to argue that Trout isn't an elite defender?). Also not sure how a .409 wOBA is "only" especially when it comes in a pitchers park. He had a 166 wRC+. Pujols' career high is 184.